Conference 7.286::sports_91

       I don't think the owners have voted on it. Vincent is the only one
    who has kinda 'vetoed' it. If the owners turn down the sale, the thing
    will go to court. MLB will get clobbered in court. They already have
    foreign ownership in Canada. If they turn down Nintendo, they will be
    charged with descrimination. I think the MLB baseball owners are the
    same as the NFL owners. They don't want to go to court and risk having
    their books opened up for all to see.
    

The owners have the collective right to veto the sale.   Smulyan knows that.  
It's a condition of doing business in baseball.  Nothing immoral or illegal 
about not wanting to sell a private holding to any particular buyer.

If baseball wants to maintain North American ownership, then that's that.  
Sorry, Nintendo, you'll have to be content with ruling the home video 
entertainment market.

Vincent's recent statements do seem a bit inflammatory but that's probably 
because the US-Japan relationship is the hottest topic going these days.   
He could have chosen his words better, I guess.

Bob Hunt

    I'd allow the ownership if baseball can get rock-solid, lawsuit-proof
    guarantees that the team stays in Seattle (something they've been
    unable to get from any American investors).  If this much is
    established, I don't see how anything is being "taken" from Americans
    (some of us consider major league baseball to be a national treasure, 
    but not because it's an industry owned and controlled by Americans).  
    Otherwise, forget it.  Baseball would risk loss of the franchise in 
    Seattle in the future (a current problem) as well as similar lawsuits 
    to the ones they face now if they try to block such a move.  Get as 
    much commitment as possible first and make it stick.
    
    Baseball as a special national interest is worth protecting, in my
    opinion.
    
    glenn
    

       I think the problem is the good ol' boyz don't want them to change
    the teams name to the Marioners.
                                    Denny

    We've been discussing this at length in the BASEBALL Mariners note.
    
    First, I'd like to clear up a few common misconceptions.
    
    1. Nintendo isn't buying anything.  The owner of Nintendo and his
       son-in-law, the president of Nintendo of America, are.  Big
       difference.  One of the partners is Frank Shrontz of Boeing.  
       Why aren't people saying Boeing is a partner?
    
    2. The Japanese gentleman has pledged to put his shares into an
       irrevocable trust, so that he can't vote to move the team, or do
       anything else. 
    
    3. They are buying the team solely to put something back into the
       community that was instrumental in their company's success.  Neither
       of the Japanese men are baseball fans, nor do they expect to make
       a profit on the deal.
    
    4. Baseball's criteria that they themselves set forth for ownership say
       nothing about foreign ownership.  Baseball does say that it wants
       local ownership and solid financial footing, neither of which
       qualified Smulyan, but they approved him.
    
    5. Mr. Arakawa has lived in Seattle for 15 years, and is more "local"
       than Smulyan.
    
    6. Why are Canadian owners allowed, but not Japanese?  You can deny
       racism all you want, but I think it's there. 
    
    More later.
    
    Pete

                                           
    > 3. They are buying the team solely to put something back into the
    >    community that was instrumental in their company's success.  Neither
    >    of the Japanese men are baseball fans, nor do they expect to make
    >    a profit on the deal.
    
    Pardon my skepticism on this point, Pete.  These prospective owners may 
    not care about a profit, but I know of no businessman who tolerates
    absorbing continued losses, especially the kind the Mariners are capable 
    of taking if they don't contend.  Even Ed DeBartolo, probably the most 
    generous sports franchise owner in history, couldn't take it after a
    while.
    
    > 6. Why are Canadian owners allowed, but not Japanese?  You can deny
    >    racism all you want, but I think it's there. 
     
    For starters, the Canadian owners control the Canadian teams,
    satisfying the local ownership directive.  That lends stability; it 
    doesn't detract from it.  And if and when baseball expands on an even 
    larger international scale, I'm sure they're resigned to the fact that 
    the ownership in Japan/Europe/Australia will be local, in Japan as 
    required by law for cultural reasons...
    
    glenn
     

    
     Very well put, Pete. Peter Gammons had an excellent article in
    yesterday's Boston Globe that said a lot of the same things.

>>The owners have the collective right to veto the sale.   Smulyan knows that.  
>>It's a condition of doing business in baseball.  Nothing immoral or illegal 
>>about not wanting to sell a private holding to any particular buyer.
    
    Bob, couldn't let this one go.  There certainly IS something illegal
    and immoral about this.  At least, there would be if baseball didn't
    have an anti-trust exemption.  It's called restraint of trade.  If this
    group meets all the criteria that baseball listed, and it's denied, it
    would be illegal in other businesses.
    
    An article in the paper pointed out that baseball's owners are like the
    partners in a law firm.  Until recently, courts held that someone could
    be denied a partnership for any reason whatsoever.  If the law partners
    didn't want a black to be a partner, they just voted him or her down.
    The courts didn't get involved.  Now, you can't do that.  There are
    many cases where the courts have awarded damages to people denied
    partnerships based on their sex or race or whatever.
    
    And, for baseball to approve the heavily in-debt Smulyan, and to deny
    a group with $125 million in cash, is immoral IMO.  
    
    One more thing I forgot to mention in .6, the Japanese didn't seek out
    ownership.  Our state senator, Slade Gorton, sought them out.  When it
    appeared that no buyer was coming forward, he arranged the deal in an
    attempt to keep baseball in Seattle.
    
    I may be a bit biased in this discussion.  I'm sick to f&%$#@* death
    of baseball's apparent conspiracy to take this team to Tampa Bay.  
    Approving Smulyan was unconscionable.  Now, Jerry Reinsdorf, the owner
    of the White Sox, who were a few days from moving to Tampa, is the
    chief Seattle-basher.  I can draw no other conclusion except that
    baseball desperately wants a team in Tampa and will stop at nothing to
    get it.
    
    I hope they kill this deal and we kick their sorry asses in court.
    I'd love to see them lose their anti-trust exemption.  This little
    private club deserves it.
    
    Pete  
        

    And along with what Pete says, the other partners, beside Boeing's
    chairman, is a gentleman (Lawson?) from MIcrosoft - who is a top
    officer of that company and one of its pioneers, the chairman of Puget
    Power and LIght, a local utility company, and another local business
    man who's name escapes me.
    
    The whole uproar is typical uninformed jingoism.  The people of Seattle
    are behind it.  The team plays in Seattle.  The owners represent the
    largest corporations in the Seattle area - the corporations that employ
    a large population (in Boeing's case close to 80,000 or more in
    thePugent Sound area).  The ownership has a solid financial backing -
    and would provide the team with money - the kind that would enable
    Seattle to pay KEn Griffey Jr. his millions.
    
    But in the new age where its chic to Japan-bash, this won't go through. 
    Fay Vincent doesn't have a clue.  He talks out of both sides of his
    mouth.   
    
    JD
    
    PS:  Some questions:
    
    What country is the #1 importer of USA Agricultural Products?
    
    What countries citizens spend per capita as much on our goods as we do
    per capita on their goods?
    
    (Hint:  Think of Bash...)

�    6. Why are Canadian owners allowed, but not Japanese?  
    
    Because MLB voted to expand into Canada?

       ...but Mac, these prospective owners live in Seattle. Is that
    somewhere in JApan?
                               Denny

    Nintendo knows anti-trust suits.

    re: .12  Foreign is foreign, Mac.  Fay says baseball is a North
    American game.  I guess he wouldn't object to putting a team
    in Guadalajara, then, huh?  I believe that there wouldn't be the
    same uproar about foreign ownership if the buyers were from
    Australia or Sweden.  Vincent is bending to the current political
    mood in the U.S.  No surprise.  He's a gutless, incompetent buffoon.
    
    Pete

    Franchises have failed before in Seattle.  Maybe MLB is tired of it?
    
    Sorry, Pete, throwing in Canada is a red herring.  As someone already
    pointed out, the Canadian teams have local ownership.  When the day
    comes for the merger of the Japanese leagues with MLB we'll see local
    ownership by Japanese.  It would be pretty hard to have it currently.

   >   ...but Mac, these prospective owners live in Seattle. Is that
   >  somewhere in JApan?
    
    As I understand it, between Nintendo's chairman and his Seattle-resident 
    son-in-law, Japanese citizens would own 60% of the team and a controlling
    interest.  Forget about the others; if push ever did come to shove they'd
    have about as much control as do the Yankees' 45% non-Steinbrenner
    minority ownership.  In itself, I don't find that alarming, but I do feel 
    (outside of Fay Vincent's best efforts to fuel the nationalistic 
    passions of Americans) that baseball has a right to express concern, and 
    to seek guarantees.  Rather than speculating on what this locally-rooted  
    ownership might or might not do in the future, let's see it in writing.  
    I don't think the technical details of the offer have even been put on 
    the table to Smulyan yet...
    
    glenn
    

    re: .16  
    
    C'mon, Mac.  I don't think a team drawing 2.1 million after 15 straight
    losing seasons is failure.  If the franchise has been less-than-
    successful, it's because MLB has sanctioned tightwads or leveraged
    "millionaires" buying the team.  This group would bring the first real
    money to the franchise.  Let's give it a chance before we deem baseball
    in Seattle to be a failure.
    
    re: .17 
    
    Glen, read my .6.  The buyer who resides in Japan will put all of his
    shares into a non-voting irrevocable trust.  He can't assert Stein-
    brenner-like control even if he wanted to.
    
    Pete

       Give it up Pete. Some people will stand for nothing less than 'real
    'muricans' owning these baseball teams. Who cares what the people of
    Seattle want. right?
                                    Denny

    Isn't forcing the Mariners to stay in Seattle in essence a restriction
    of free trade?  If the market will not support an industry in a
    particular area, why artificially keep it there?

    Pete,
    Educate me. A non-voting irrevocable trust? 60% ownership. Why the hail
    is he/they investing? To hamstring himself/themselves in the event
    of future business down trends. If that's me, I'll be damned if I'm
    signing any damn irrevocable trust ( admitting that I know only
    small details of this story), unless it has ONLY to do with moving
    the team out of the country.
    
    BTW, philosphically, I believe any foreign investor should be in a
    position to own % of a baseball team. The only caveat would be to
    ensure that the team could not be moved outside its' resident country.
    
    Before we start automatically level charges of latent or overt racism
    here, let's ( Americans) look at this as business only. I see no
    racism in Vincent's actions ( I disagree with him) but as a reaction
    to the current business climate. I shouldn't say this but, if any
    charges of racism in this matter or any other situations arise, let's
    look at Japan's attitudes regarding other cultures. I'm sure people
    of Filipino,Chinese, or Korean culture can open eyes about so-called
    "enlightened" Japanese practices (unofficial of course).
    
    JMHO
    
    MikeL
     

>    of free trade?  If the market will not support an industry in a
>    particular area, why artificially keep it there?
       Did you miss the note about the 2.1 million in attendance? Or are
    you just ignoring it?
                             Denny

 
>    of free trade?  If the market will not support an industry in a
>    particular area, why artificially keep it there?
 
Did the Mariner's make a profit last year? Breakeven? Fan support 
does not equate market support. The fact remains that Seattle 
cannot generate a large enough television contract to supplement 
their other revenue. If he's losing money, he should move the 
team to where he can make a go of it, pending approval of the MLB 
owners.

daryll

    > Give it up Pete. Some people will stand for nothing less than 'real
    > 'muricans' owning these baseball teams. Who cares what the people of
    > Seattle want. right?
    
    Thanks for that wholly honest summation of Mac's and my points,
    Denny.  I've said that the deal should be approved if concrete 
    assurances are made, but I'm still a Japan-basher.  If the people of 
    Seattle were to be burned by yet another ownership group, they'd be 
    the first in line screaming for these guys' heads, Japanese or not.  
    Saving the franchise is what it's all about for Seattle residents, 
    and rightly so.  They also screamed for tightwad George Argyros' head 
    and got it, and generally supported Jeff Smulyan when he took over, 
    as at the time he seemed to be a promising young owner willing to
    rebuild the club (and whom the very same Peter Gammons also loved when 
    he took over for the extremely unpopular Argyros), in spite of what you 
    might be hearing about him now.  
    
    Mac brings up a very legitimate point on the subject of Seattle's
    support of baseball.  They're stuck in one of the smallest markets in
    probably the worst stadium in all of baseball with absolutely the worst 
    TV deal in the league.  Right now, the Seattle Mariners are a money-
    losing proposition under baseball's non-revenue-sharing system unless 
    they become consistently successful on the field (which isn't easy in 
    the best of circumstances, much less Seattle's).  That's all the more 
    reason that baseball should be guaranteed stability of the franchise 
    by foreign investors, regardless of what kind of desperation Seattle
    currently feels in their attempts to prevent a move...
    
    glenn
    

                                                              
    > Did you miss the note about the 2.1 million in attendance? Or are
    > you just ignoring it?
    
    That was the all-time franchise record and it was still only 10th in
    the league.  It also included tickets bought by the community as an 
    inducement for fans to attend games in order to meet contractual 
    attendance requirements.  Combined with the TV situation, no one at 
    all in baseball denies the fact that Seattle is probably the least
    financially attractive franchise in baseball at this moment.
    
    glenn
    

These seems like a good subject to plunge into...

As it was pointed out, the Mariners drew pretty decenlty last year and have 
finally become a better-than-pathetic team.  A lot of people see them contending
in the future. The reason for all this doom and gloom and Florida rumours is that
Suylyman is strapped for cash, and the way salaries are spiraling, it doesn't 
look like he'll be able to keep guys like Grifey too much longer.

If you look at how much revenue th Mariners raked in, I would guess that it 
would be in the same ballpark as other small-market teams like KC, Milwaukee, 
Pittsburgh, etc. If you look at where the Mainers money goes (not to players' 
salaries) I woud speculate that like the U.S. deficit, more (or at least a large 
chunk) goes toward debt service (interest payments) than go toward running the 
team or the country.

I don't remember when exactly Sulyman took contol, but could it have been in the 
mid-80s, when the leveraged buyout was all the rage? This is great. They finally 
get a potential owner who has deep enough pockets to run th eteam right, and 
these jingoistic idiots would rather have someone like Stienbrenner, Charlie 
Finley or Calvin Griffith, cause they are 'mercins. 

I bet Vincent though Bush's trip to Asia was a success, too

=====================
BTW, I't grat to be back in ::SPORTS!  I was off the network for a couple of 
months, and it's good to see nothiong has changed. Roll on!


Tom

    Mac -
    
    Teh Mariners have won as many World Championships in the last 15 years
    as the Red Sox.
    
    They brought in over 2 million folks last year.  And that was their
    first year.  This town will support them.
    
    The current ownership has done nothing for baseball in this town but
    whine and lie.  Fay Vincent supports that.   The proposed ownership is
    interested in fielding a winner in Seattle and nuturing community
    relations - by having the area's largest business get more involved. 
    To Fay Vincent, that's bad.
    
    JD

    Darryl, Glenn, Mac -
    
    So actually, only large markets should have teams.  Seattle, Milwaukee,
    and the other small markets should forget about building winners.
    
    Nothing like some good old NewEngland snobbery to cloud your visions.
    
    The Mariners are popular here - no small feat considering this is more
    of a football area.  Ken Griffey, Jr., is by far the most popular
    athlete in Seattle.  I'd guess that Harold Reynolds and Randy Johnson
    aren't that far behind.
    
    Baseball is stuck because communities in Florida have already spent
    huge bucks hoping to get teams.  They are now willing to do anything in
    their power to have it happen.  
    
    But I can understand.  Jeff Smulyan represents everything that's great
    about this country and baseball.  He's leveraged to the hilt.  He's a
    whiner.  He's a liar.  All good traits when compared to real community
    leaders like the corporate leaders of Nintendo of American, Microsoft,
    Boeing, etc...
    
    JD

�    Teh Mariners have won as many World Championships in the last 15 years
�    as the Red Sox.
    
    Thanks for that totally irrellavent comment.
    
�    They brought in over 2 million folks last year.  And that was their
�    first year.  This town will support them.
    
    First year?  I thougth the Mariners franchise had been in Seattle long
    enough.  The town certainly did seem to support them when they (the
    town, not the fans) went out and bought the number of tickets
    neccessary to hold Smulyan to his contract.
    
�    The current ownership has done nothing for baseball in this town but
�    whine and lie.  Fay Vincent supports that.   The proposed ownership is
�    interested in fielding a winner in Seattle and nuturing community
�    relations - by having the area's largest business get more involved. 
    
    Wasn't the same thing said when Smulyan took over?

    Regarding the M's finances: I believe the M's are in basically a 
    break-even state right now.  Smulyan is in trouble in large part
    because of the $11 million in collusion damages he had to pay as part
    of his purchase of the team.  It seems that Argyros had told him the
    damages would be more like $2 million.  Why Smulyan didn't get some
    protection in the purchase-sale agreement is a mystery to me.  And,
    the last note was correct.  Smulyan is also paying a pile of interest.
    Take away the damages and interest and the team breaks even.
    
    Also, a group of Seattle businessmen have raised about $9 million in
    additional annual revenue through the sale of more season tickets,
    greater advertising revenue, and a better TV deal.  This is so
    frustrating because the team is finally putting it together both on
    and off the field, yet it might not be enough.
    
    Pete

    I know nothing about the specifics of the situation in Seattle, and
    won't pretend to.  This note is the first that I've heard about any of
    this.
    
    What I wonder is whether this is the first of a series of financial
    problems that MLB is going to have.  TV revenues across the country are
    down, and will be down significantly when the current contracts run
    out.  Meanwhile, between free agency and binding arbitration, baseball
    salaries have run more amok than any others in sports -- and that's
    saying a *lot*.
    
    Seems to me that MLB needs to see this as a wake-up call for getting
    their financial house in order.  And they don't seem to be getting the
    message.
    
    A&W

    JD, this New England Snob didn't realize the Milwaukee franchise was on
    the verge of moving to Florida.  This snob saw small market franchises
    in Minnesota, Pittsburgh, and Atlanta do pretty well for themselves on
    and off the field last year.
    
    A&W, people have been predicting the demise of MLB since the advent of
    free agency (probably even since Babe Ruth started getting paid more
    than the President of the U.S.).  The players' salaries are due in
    large part to the large amount of revenue being taken in by MLB.  If
    MLB's revenues start to decline, we'll see across the board reductions
    in new player contracts.

    
                                       
    What?   Milwaukee moving to Fla?    I havn't heard anything about this
    except that the Brewers wanted a new stadium, and were making vague
    statements that other cities were interested in them as a prod to get
    Milwaukee to make some committments.
    
    This was last summer, any more rumors on the Brew Crew?
    
    Pat
    

    > Darryl, Glenn, Mac -
    > 
    > So actually, only large markets should have teams.  Seattle, Milwaukee,
    > and the other small markets should forget about building winners.
    > 
    > Nothing like some good old NewEngland snobbery to cloud your visions.
    
    Great note, JD.  Disagree with the other side so invent a whole pile of
    stuff they supposedly agree with and then just thrash away at it.  That 
    ol' strawman just doesn't fight back.
    
    As you probably already know, I've been one of the people who've argued
    long and hard in favor of socialistic revenue sharing in baseball to aid 
    small markets and competition on the field (so has Fay Vincent, btw).  I
    simply stated the facts about the Seattle situation under baseball's 
    current system, not one of which you refuted.  Their situation is a big
    part of the reason I think Seattle and baseball should get guarantees
    (debt financing versus non-debt financing means there's no banker hanging 
    over the proceedings, but it does nothing for the bottom line minus 
    interest payments-- it doesn't bring a TV contract, or attract more
    fans, or otherwise create money).  It ain't New England snobbery, but 
    close enough, right?
    
    The only thing I really don't like about Seattle is that damn stadium
    (this should be near and dear to your heart, JD, what with your well
    known stance on domes).  To me, that's not baseball (or at least not
    baseball as it should be).  A move to St. Pete would yield no
    improvement on that front, though, so I have no real desire to see
    another team there, either...
    
    glenn
    

    Glenn -
    
    I guess the person who  ticked me off was Doda - and then you and Mac
    and I lumped ya all together.  My apologies.  You did hit the Dome
    thing on the haid.  Hate it.  Absolutely hate it.
    
    Mac -
    
    You make it sound liek Seattle bought 2 million tickets to keep
    Smulyan.  that wasn't the case.  And I'd laugh if the SOx were sold and
    the new owners said "see ya".  See all the whining then!  But I know
    that won't happen...
    
    THere was a note about small markets.  The trend seems to be - if a
    small market can't compete - the hell with them - move em to Florida.
    
    MLB has been ******* every town and city in Florida looking for new
    training facilities, etc...  MLB will do anything in its power to screw
    other towns in order to keep their bedmates in Florida happy.
    
    And the first year was a typo - this was their first winning season.  
    
    JD

�    You make it sound liek Seattle bought 2 million tickets to keep
�    Smulyan.  that wasn't the case.  And I'd laugh if the SOx were sold and
�    the new owners said "see ya".  See all the whining then!  But I know
�    that won't happen...
    
    I did?  All I did was try to reiterate what was said earlier - that an
    effort was made to buy up tickets to prevent Smulyan from excercising a
    clause in his contract to move the team out of Seattle.  If anything,
    you made it sound like 2 mil/year is the norm in Seattle.  
    
    You're right, there would be a lot of whining if someone were to try to
    move the Sox after 70 years of being in Boston.  Don't think it would
    happen, though.  The Sox do have the benefit of a strong fan base, a
    good TV contract, and corporate sponsorship.  As you and others have
    pointed out, Seattle has at best 1 out of these 3 things going for it
    currently.  It would be stupid for MLB and the new owners to move the
    team out of Boston.

>    You're right, there would be a lot of whining if someone were to try to
>   move the Sox after 70 years of being in Boston.  Don't think it would
>    happen, though.  The Sox do have the benefit of a strong fan base, a
>    good TV contract, and corporate sponsorship.  As you and others have
>    pointed out, Seattle has at best 1 out of these 3 things going for it
>    currently.  It would be stupid for MLB and the new owners to move the
>    team out of Boston.


 on my part they would be tears of joy.  ;^)  I wish we could trade the
 Soxs to Chicago for the Cubbies....

 mike

    
    One of the current Baseball conspiracy stories being circulated is that
    MLB owes the city of Tampa/St Pete a baseball franchise. The theory
    being put forth is that so many teams have used the threat of moving
    their teams to Tampa in order to get New stadiums, tax concessions and
    other public favors that MLB feels it owes Tampa a team now.
    
    Another theory is that the American League wants to get into the rich
    florida market before all the fans have a national league bias built in
    by having a NL team their first.
    
    Personally I'm all for The Baseball Club of Seattle bid to buy the M's.
    The 60% of the $$$ that would be put in a non-voting trust basically
    insures that the team will stay in the area. It is being used to show
    MLB that Mr Yamauchi has no interest in moving the team. He is strictly
    doing this for PR purposes in the area and has no intention of running
    the team nor does he care if they lose money. I doubt he'll sink any
    more money into the team. He is just putting up 60% of the purchase
    price. 
    
    BTW - The state of Washington has a net surplus of trade with the
    Japanese last year and for many years running. Being one of the closest
    states to the Pacific rim the people here realize the need for
    cooperation and trade and the evolution of the global economy much
    better than most in the U.S.
    
    The M's have turned the corner from a team consistantly losing money to
    one that is currently breaking even. With this ownership they could
    become the adopted team of Japan and see revenues increase
    dramatically. Maybe MLB is afraid of the deep pockets of this
    ownership? Maybe they are afraid of one team seeing possibly dramaticly
    increased revenues as a result of contracts with Japan?
    
    I thinkt he snow job Vincent has been selling people about MLB teams
    only being owned by North Americans is a cover up for some other
    reasons why they don't want this sale to go through.....
    
    Somebody give Oliver Stone a call. I think he'll be interested in this
    :-)
    
    
    Metz

    TO add to something Metz said -
    
    Someting like 1 in 5 workers in Washington have jobs relating to the
    inmport/export business - one of the highest percentages in the
    country..
    
    JD

    
    A couple points:
    
    1.  If the Japnaese guy bought a part of the M's, wouldn't it help the
    balance of trade everyone is so upset about?
    
    2.  Even if the guy wanted to move the M's, he'd need MLB's OK to do
    so, which wouldn't happen.
    

    I have a hard time believing Nintendo is doing this just for the good
    folks of Seattle.

    Bruce, no, it wouldn't help the balance of trade.  BOT counts only
    imports and exports of goods.  It's a meaningless number since it
    doesn't count services or net investment, which the M's sale would
    affect.  (I knew my masters in International Business would come in
    handy someday 8^) .)
    
    I get pretty annoyed at the attitude of "if the fans in Seattle won't
    support the team, screw 'em" that I've heard.  The fact is that this
    team is succeeding even though the product, until recently, has been
    abysmal.  The fans have stuck with the team through 14 straight losing
    seasons, fer crissakes.  What do you think would happen in other cities
    if their team lost for 14 straight years.  How's attendance at Foxboro
    these days?  I think if you Boston area fans have 10 more years of
    Kiam, dwindling fan support, and a new owner wanted to move the team,
    you'd be crying foul, too.  I don't think a city should be punished for
    having horrendous owners.  Bottom line, Smulyan never should have been
    approved as an owner.  This team wouldn't be in any financial trouble
    if Smulyan had some cash, rather than a line of credit that the bank is
    calling.  It would be a travesty if MLB approves someone who doesn't
    fit their own written criteria, then turn around and deny ownership to
    a group who does.  Why the hell have written criteria if you're going
    to violate it every time?  If MLB didn't want foreign ownership, they
    should have made that clear in their criteria, then the groundrules 
    would be understood by all and this debate wouldn't be taking place.
    
    P.O.ed Pete

    
    Read my lips Mac....
    
    Nintendo is not buying the M's. The president of Nintendo (1 guy) is
    putting up 60% of the money. He is a person not a company. He is worth
    $4 billion at last estimate. If he puts up $60 million he is only
    putting up 1.5% of hit net worth. He won't even miss the $$$. He was
    approached by a Washington state senator to put up the money. Why do
    you have such a tough time believing this?
    
    Rich guys give 10 to 15 million bucks away all the time and expect
    nothing for it. How much did Cosby give away to Marshall college and I
    doubt he's worth $4 billion?
    
    Metz
    

    > 2.  Even if the guy wanted to move the M's, he'd need MLB's OK to do
    > so, which wouldn't happen.
    
    True, but that's the exact same approval they need right now to even
    buy the team that has everyone up in arms about antitrust violations
    and massive lawsuits.  Possession is 9/10's of the law, as they say.
    A vote of owners to prohibit an existing owner from moving a team is 
    a very weak deterrent, because it gets extremely messy trying to 
    undo something that's already done.  Seattle needs a solid financial 
    deterrent to keep the Mariners in town.  Maybe this trust thing
    represents exactly that; I don't know.
    
    glenn
    

    re: .41
    
    Mac, I believe them when they say they're doing it for Seattle.
    Heck, the dude's got $2 billion, what's $75 million?
    
    But then again, I believed Smulyan when he said that he would keep
    the team in Seattle and that he'd move here.
    
    Pete

�The fans have stuck with the team through 14 straight losing
�    seasons, fer crissakes.  What do you think would happen in other cities
�    if their team lost for 14 straight years.  How's attendance at Foxboro
�    these days?  I think if you Boston area fans have 10 more years of
�    Kiam, dwindling fan support, and a new owner wanted to move the team,
�    you'd be crying foul, too.  
    
    The Indians are still in Cleveland and getting a new stadium to boot. 
    Attendance in Foxboro is getting better, thank you.  Kiam was approved
    as owner of the Pats after he promised not to move them.  If he was
    able to move them, the NFL would have a new franchise in here very
    quickly since it is one of the largest markets in the country.

    It was a rhetorical question, Mac.
    
    Pete

    
    > The Indians are still in Cleveland and getting a new stadium to boot. 
    > Attendance in Foxboro is getting better, thank you.  Kiam was approved
    > as owner of the Pats after he promised not to move them.  If he was
    > able to move them, the NFL would have a new franchise in here very
    > quickly since it is one of the largest markets in the country.
    
    It was a rhetorical question, but on the theme of fans' "deserving"
    a team (based on personal support, and not TV market size), I think 
    a pretty strong argument can be made that New England is not a 
    football region and has offered very poor support of the Patriots,
    even relative to their performance, especially when you do consider
    that market size that is there to draw from.  I'm sure the fans would 
    support a consistent winner, but the average team in any league is 
    only .500, and plenty of areas of the country have supported football
    far better than New England even when the teams haven't met their end
    of the bargain.
    
    glenn
        

 But Glenn poor support for the Patriots is simply a matter of the Stadium.
 It's the pits. The only good thing about Foxboro (besides JH) is the real
 grass. When you see them scan the stands at other stadiums you do see
 real whole honest to goodness families. At Foxboro wives and kids are few
 and far between...

 parking is outrageous and access to and from is slower than pony express..

 mike

    Mac -
    
    Nintendo has a corporate entity called "Nintendo of America".  The
    headquarters for Nintendo of America is in Redmond, WA. - about 15
    miles from the Kingdome.  Nintendo employs local residents - Americans
    - in that operation.  It puts a lot back into the community.  
    
    It seems that folks see "Japanese" and automatically put up the NO WAY
    sign.  
    
    Heck, Bill Gates could decide to buy the team, and Fay Vincent and his
    cronies would probably invoke a "NO-GEEKS" rule to ownership.
    
    The Pacific Northwest has been one of the big growth areas in the U.S.
    over the last few years.  MLB is effectively saying "Good Bye" - we
    don't want you.  I can see it now - the non-so-distant future - and all
    the MLB teams are in Florida, California and the Boston-D.C. corridor.  
    
    Re:  Cleveland
    
    The Indians - despite WOEFUL, and I mean WOEFUL, fan support - get good
    corporate support.  This new deal with the Mariners seems to be a sign
    of new corporate interest and support for the Mariners.  And at least
    the Mariners are competitive and have more than 700 people at the
    games.
    
    JD

    An analogy between the NFL and MLB in terms of moving teams does not
    work.
    
    Finley had to get MLB's approval to move from KC to Oakland. Davis
    never got the NFL's approval, neither did Irsay. Difference is baseball
    has an anti-trust exmption while football does not. All footbal has is
    a limited exemption for the TV contracts and such.
    
    The Crazy Met
    

Baseball got it's anti-trust exemption in the 1930's because it was ruled that
it was not engaging in interstate commerce. It was also a time where the govt
was trying not to exert federal authority on every case put before it.

If you look at MLB now you have to say it is engaging in a lot of interstate
commerce and would probably lose it's anti-trust exemption if it was put to the
test.

Actually I think both Irsay and Davis got permission after the fact (Didn't
Al get permission as a result of his lawsuit?)

As Pete mentioned earlier, the granting of partnerships now has legal 
implications and precedents....


Metz

    My comments on Nintendo had nothing to do with them being a Japanese
    based company.  As can be clearly seen throughout their history,
    Nintendo does what is best for Nintendo.  Thus my skepticism over the
    "he's only being a nice guy and doesn't even want to make any money"
    comments.
    
    Glenn, I think another thing contributing to the Patriots' following in
    New England is that they were an AFL franchise coming into an area of
    entrenched NFC/Giant fans.
    
    Anyway, as even the folks in Seattle have pointed out, a loyal fan
    following as measured by attendance still may not provide what it takes
    to make a team financially stable.  Ticket prices are not paying the
    players' salaries.  TV and advertising revenues do (you should hear
    about the ad wars between Miller and Bud over Garden and Fenway Park
    advertising rights).

                                       
    > Finley had to get MLB's approval to move from KC to Oakland. Davis
    > never got the NFL's approval, neither did Irsay. Difference is baseball
    > has an anti-trust exmption while football does not. All footbal has is
    > a limited exemption for the TV contracts and such.
      
    Doesn't matter, TCM.  Once an owner says he's gone, tells his employees
    to pack their stuff and heads out of town they're gone.  The approval
    or disapproval then becomes a matter of formality or legality.  The 
    antitrust exemption is pertinent only once the inevitable lawsuits come 
    pouring in, but it means absolutely nothing to the fans left holding 
    the bag.  It's too late.  Major league baseball may have an antitrust
    exemption, but in matters of owner self-determination they've never had 
    the cojones or the legal clout to stand in the way of a fellow owner
    once he's in the league.  The historic case that Al Davis won only
    further reinforced, in all of sports, the disinclination to attempt to 
    stop an owner from doing what he wants with his team.  With or without
    this antitrust exemption a suit to reverse the move is unlikely to hold 
    up, and as the NFL learned, it's also an expensive lesson to learn. 
    
    I still think you've got to deal with the issue up front, at the time
    of the sale, with iron-clad commitments that financially lock the owner
    in place.  Prohibitive loss of many dollars is more effective than the
    threat of lawsuits down the line...
    
    glenn
    

    Glenn,
    
    It is important to deal with the issue up front. However, the case of
    the Raiders is not a precedent as far as MLB is concerned because MLB
    plays by a somewhat different set of legal rules. MLB could get a
    prelimiminary injuntion and then take it from there.
    
    The Crazy Met
    

    The M's are staying in Seattle.  The local group pulled a coup on
    Fay the Accidential (Bart, we miss you!) and his gang of goons.
    
    My predicition is- Seattle will draw upon Nintendo's marketing
    expertise in Japan and become the wealthiest team in baseball.
    The net result will be a powerhouse team.  Players love Seattle
    and will want to play here when the money is right.  Woe to you
    poor and weak teams.  
    
    Nintendo, in Japan, is the major player in home purchasing, that is the use
    of the tube with a Nintendo product to review and buy products from
    home.   Just consider the potential size of the TV market in Japan!
    And the owner Nintendo, this marketing powerhouse, technology leader 
    in this rich and baseball crazy country has invested in the M's.  This
    will be Japan's team.  Consider Griffey- he is as marketable as Jordan
    in Japan.  Mitchell can be a big hit.  The players will stand to earn
    big bucks with the Mariners.   
    
    The owners and Fay the Accidental are brainless.   Major League Properties 
    (jackets, hats, etc) can provide a major revenue boost to all teams.
    
    This will bring about one change- more pushing for revenue sharing.
    I am looking forward to being on the side of a financial 'have'.
     
    Matt the Mariner

JD,

You deny this man has a right to move his team if he chooses and 
has the owners approval?

daryll

    The folks who were berating the system and moaning about the alleged
    advantages of big market teams are embracing the system now that they
    have a chance to become a big market team.

    
    Daryyl -
    
    Yeah, he has the right.  But does he have the right to lie and hold a
    gun to people's heads because he's leveraged to the hilt and got in
    over his head?
    
    Say Jean Yawkey sold the Sox to some Yuppie who a few year's later was
    in a similar predicament and wanted to move the SOx unless Boston came
    up with some god-almighty sum.  Would you be so pro-owner then, eh
    Darryl?  
    
    Mac -
    
    I believe one person put in a note (Matt the Mariner) that fits your
    description of "the folks who were berating..."
    
    JD
    
    PS:  Smulyan has said he'd accept the offer if it is a good one.  It's
    for everything he demanded.  It's up to Fay the fool to decide.  I
    still say that MLB made some promises to Florida and will do anything
    in their power to kill any Seattle deal.
    
    JD

    Also, we keep hearing - from folks mainly on the East Coast - about
    whether this is good for baseball.  (Note for Mac - I'm talking about
    folks in the big sense - outside of SPORTS.)
    
    Well, the people of Seattle, in all polls, are behind this proposed
    deal.  They want baseball and want it to stay.  They are all behind it.  
    
    The proposed ownership coalition has got sound financial footing (FWIW,
    the other partner that I couldn't remember the other day is the hed of
    Macraw Comminications...).   Compared to Smulyan's financial status at
    the time of his buying the M's (with blessings from the circle-jerk
    owners), this group is Fort Knox (with Smulyan being Bank of New
    England).
    
    So what's bad for baseball?  Is having a team in one of the quickest
    growing areas in the country bad for baseball?   Is having a team in
    the hub of Pacific Rim trading and interaction bad for baseball?  Is
    having ownership with strong community ties (Boeing, Microsoft, Puget
    Power, MAcraw Communications and Nintendo of America) bad for baseball?
    Is having ownership that represents companies that employ a HUGE
    majority of employees in the Puget Sound area bad for baseball?  Is
    having a team located in a place that allows it to naturally expand its
    base of fan support northward to western Canada and Alaska, southward
    to Oregon, eastward to Idaho, Montana and parts of Utah, and West to
    Japan and the rest of the Pacific Rim bad for baseball?
    
    Is, given the histories of some of the ownerships that Major League
    Baseball has had, having a Japanese presence all that bad?
    
    
    JD

    regarding notes .58 & .60
    
    JD- Well said.  As with TV revenue, if the local team (Boston &
    NY for example) has it, it's 'good for baseball.'  If Seattle doesn't,
    this is 'good for baseball, it does not deserve to exist'  Its good for 
    baseball to have 'American' (read Occidential) owners, this is the status 
    quo.  Now that Seattle stands to become a 'have', its 'not good for
    baseball.'  And its wrong for us, the maligned, to look forward to 
    the potential rewards.  This hypocracy is unbearable.
    
    As stated many times before, if MLB cannot survive in Seattle, the
    sport is in serious trouble.  This is not a Seattle only issue.  Unless
    the objective is fewer teams, baseball ownership must address revenue 
    sharing.  But till this is done, I will be most happy to be on the 
    money side.
    
    Matt the Mariner

�    As stated many times before, if MLB cannot survive in Seattle, the
�    sport is in serious trouble.  
    
    Just becasue something is said many times doesn't mean that it is
    correct.  Baseball failed before in Seattle and MLB still did very
    well.  Baseball still hasn't come back to the Nation's capital yet MLB
    is still doing very well.

    Mac,
    
    First, you didn't ever address my question about how Boston fans would
    feel if the Pats were to move due to bad ownership leading to reduced
    fan support.  You said something like "we'd get a new team since Boston
    is a large market".  That's not an answer.  I'm trying to get people
    who aren't close to the situation to empathize with us Seattle fans
    a little bit by bringing up a hypothetical situation that hits a little
    closer to home.  I contend that Seattle has been very supportive of
    the M's given the incredible incompetency of the team and its owners.
    
    And, you keep bringing up the fact that Seattle lost a team before. 
    I'm not sure what that has to do with anything either.  I was only 10
    years old at the time, so I don't know all the reasons why they left,
    and I'm sure you don't either.  Part of it was that they were playing
    in a decrepit stadium in the highest crime area in the city.  I'm not
    sure one expansion-quality season is enough to base an argument on.
    Also, the M's are here because Seattle won a lawsuit against MLB for
    moving the Pilots.  We took on MLB once and won.  I can't wait 'til
    we do it again.
    
    Matt and JD, good notes.  I think it takes someone who's close to the
    situation to understand it as it really is.  I still can't understand
    what MLB has to fear about Japanese ownership.  I don't think having
    one more well-financed team is going to harm the game in any way.
    
    If any of you have access to the Wall Street Journal, there's a good
    article on this situation on the editorial page in the lower right
    corner.
    
    Pete
    

    	Pete, if the Pats don't draw well in the next couple of years
    and they leave, the fans of New England will have nobody to blame
    but themselves.  I'm a season ticket holder, but the team is here
    to make money, not serve the public.  The New England fans had an
    exciting team this year (only two home losses that could be considered
    blowouts), but the fans still stayed away.  You can argue that Foxboro
    Stadium is the problem, but it's my feeling that this area never
    really had a strong fan base for professional football, so if they
    lose the team to some other market the New England fans will have
    no legitimate bitch.
    
    				/Don

    Well, Worcester lost the New England Blazers due to lack of fan
    support.  They also haven't been able to hold onto a CBA team.  This
    probably hurt their chances of getting the AHL team the Centrum owners
    have always wanted.  I haven't lost any sleep over it.
    
    I lived in an area where the closest pro-sports team was 1-� hours away
    and most were 3-4 hours away.  My favorite teams were 4 hours away by
    plane.  I survived.
    
    If Seattle had been selling out for a few seasons and had some big buck
    local TV and sponsorship money behind them, I'd empathize.  I'd say
    Seattle was being screwed.
    
    Seattle is trying to hold a gun to the head of Smulyan and MLB and tell
    them what to do with their team.  It is a nice change of pace from the
    normal owner holding gun to head of city I supposed.

                                                                  
    You guys can knock yourselves silly with these bogus claims of
    hypocrisy with regards to Boston and New York (and I admitted that 
    the comparison of the situation to the Patriots' was a fair one), 
    but you're not addressing the point, which was not that the people of
    Seattle somehow don't "deserve" baseball, but rather the realities of 
    Seattle's financial standing.  *If* revenue sharing doesn't come 
    about and *if* the Mariners don't start banging out pennants and *if* 
    they don't get a TV contract, then they'll probably maintain the same 
    mediocre fan and community support and they'll only be able to exist 
    if their owners are willing to write off the losses.  If these men 
    are willing to do that, so be it, no problem.  I've expressed my 
    doubts that anyone, American or Japanese, would be willing to swallow 
    sustained losses.  Let's just see what happens, on and off the field.
    There's absolutely nothing judgmental towards the city and people of 
    Seattle inherent in expressing that caution.
    
    Also, Seattle did not take on MLB in court and win.  MLB conceded and 
    gave Seattle an expansion franchise in exchange for dropping the 
    lawsuit.  Based solely on the management and operation of that 
    franchise granted to one George Argyros, that decision was probably a 
    mistake (disclaimer: this is not a slur on the people of Seattle!)
    
    glenn
     
    

    Well said /Don and glenn!
    
    If Boeing, Microsoft, et.al. were so gung ho about keeping Baseball in
    Seattle, where were they when the TV sponsorship money needed to be
    raised and the luxury boxes needed to be filled?

    Mac -
    
    Both companies already have numerous 'boeing' or 'microsoft' nights and
    own luxury boxes.  
    
    And, when Smulyan held the gun to Seattle's head (not the other way
    around, as in your "Seattle with the gun to MLB head claim) - he
    thought that the city would do nothing, and he'd be gone.  Well he
    underestimated the city and the areas resolve to keep the team.
    
    There have been all types of drives to keep the team - and this latest
    coalition of the largest business leaders is the best of the options
    that were talked about.  Smulyan has made demand after demand - and
    Seattle hasn't cowered or backed down to him - and instead has taken
    the initiative to him and the cowering cowards of Fay and the good old
    boys.
    
    MLB would be better off with a 20-odd Steinbrenner's owning and running
    each team than to have one Jeff Smulyan trying to stay one step ahead
    of bankrupcy court.  
    
    It seems that to the rest of the country, Smulyan is being cast as a
    good guy - instead of a debt-ridden liar.  And it seems that to the
    rest of the country, the group that is offering to  buy the Mariners'
    is seen as ogres from Japan.   Why doesn't Fay Vincent get off his fat
    duff and actually come to Seattle to see the situation?  Has Mr.
    Vincent gone to meet - or set up a meeting - with the big bad boogey
    man (i.e. the Japanese!)??  Has Mr. Vincent or any of the other
    no-nothings that call themselves owners done either of these things?
    
    No, they've sat in their ivory towers and made uninformed decisions.
    
    JD
    
    PS:  Mac - what does the fact that you lived in Austin have to do with
    anything?  Nothing.  That's what.  Has no bearing on this discussion at
    all.

�    PS:  Mac - what does the fact that you lived in Austin have to do with
�    anything?  Nothing.  That's what.  Has no bearing on this discussion at
�    all.
    
    Someone wanted to know how I'd feel living without a pro-sports
    franchise in my backyard.  I've been there, done that, what's next?

    
    > There have been all types of drives to keep the team - and this latest
    
    What about plain old season ticket sales?  From what I've read, Seattle
    has the lowest season ticket sales in all of baseball, well
    below 5,000.  I don't see where this number, which outside of corporate
    sales is a rough measure of the number of die-hard Seattle baseball 
    supporters, should be affected by much more than the price of the seats 
    and the quality of the team (not by TV, corporate investment, luxury 
    boxes, etc.).  The team has been competitive in the toughest division 
    in baseball for a couple of years now (and features one of the game's 
    brightest stars), offering more on the field than several teams with 
    much better advance sales.  What gives?
    
    glenn
     

    I'll be the first to admit that corporate support here has been
    poor all along.  Only when it really looks like the team is moving
    is there some support.  One theory is that businesses didn't want
    to be associated with the loser image the Mariners had.  I can't
    say I blame them.
    
    Glenn, yeah, we're a little touchy, I suppose.  At the risk of
    belaboring the point, I think we all feel like the fans of Seattle
    have been screwed by MLB and the lying scum owners we've had.  Now,
    when the team is turning the corner on the field and off, the very
    real possibility exists that the team will move, not because of lack
    of fan support, but because of what appears to be a conspiracy to give
    Tampa/St. Petersburg a team, and because the owner is overleveraged.
    Now, there are well-financed buyers, and MLB might turn them down just
    because one of them happens to be Japanese.  
    
    But, as I've said before, this is an emotional issue with me, so I'm
    not real objective.  There is more than one way to read this situation.
    I'm just giving my perspective.  
    
    Pete
    

In fact MLB loves Smulyan. To them he represented the next wave of owners. In 
fact he'll probably get premission to buy another ball club should one ever
come up for sale (if the M's get sold and not moved). Supposedly he's in line
to buy the Indians should they ever go up for sale.

I think the Seattle community is just now starting to realize what a boon it is
to the area to have a Major League club here. Because the M's were losers for
so long talk turned to football as early as July around here. This year the M's
were still on the front sports page through Labor day. 

The area is growing and the fan base is growing. The park stinks. It doesn't 
have any real luxery boxes (glassed in boxes that serve food and such) like
Fenway or any other decent park has. Season tickets are expected to jump from
5k to 10k this season. The big stickler in making the team financially viable
in the area is local tv revenue. Local broadcast of the M's was the highest
rated shows in it's broadcast time this season (contrast that with bowling
outdrawing the Sox). 

The big problem is Cable tv rights. Most of the people I know are big enough
baseball fans to shell out additional $$$ for a premium cable channel that
would broadcast the M's. Currently Prime sports Northwest is bundled in with 
the 2nd tier of cable subscriptions (the first tier being broadcast only 
channels). The cable company doesn't see a need to increase the $$$ for 
broadcasting right sto the games. It's probably an appropriate business decision
on their part.

Personally I think the baseball is just starting to turn the corner in Seattle.
If we can keep the franchise here 5 more years, and with proper ownership and
financial management (no big $$ free agents...like most small market clubs) I 
think it will pay it's way. 

I also think that baseball will have some sort of revenue sharing in 5 years to
help the small market clubs.

I don't think many Seattle bashers can appreciate why the fans don't currently
support it. From years 1-14 the team stunk. It had piss poor ownership, a 
shitty indoor stadium and an abysmal talent pool. Fourteen straight years of
being 20 games out of first by mid july. No winning tradition to fall back
on. Fourteen years of being the laughingstock of the AL. No signs of improvement.
Now when the team is staring to turn the corner and show that it really is 
a baseball team and the fans start turning out to watch, it might be gone.

It's kind of tough if you haven't experienced it and I only experienced 2 years
of it..I'd hate to be Pete who grew up with this team representing the area :-)

Metz

�I don't think many Seattle bashers can appreciate why the fans don't currently
�support it. 
    
    I'm not bashing Seattle.  If I was I'd be saying things like why do
    newcomers to the area (esp. Californians) have to form support groups
    to combat the natives who want them to go back home.
    
    On the field, Cleveland (no offense, Paul), is in worse shape than
    Seattle yet Cleveland is building them a new stadium and we don't hear
    too much about the owners wanting to move the team to Fla.  Why not? 

>   On the field, Cleveland (no offense, Paul), is in worse shape than
>    Seattle yet Cleveland is building them a new stadium and we don't hear
>    too much about the owners wanting to move the team to Fla.  Why not? 

Corporate support and local tv revenue. (plus what else is there to do in 
Cleveland? There's a heck of a lot to do here in the summer after being rained
on all winter) 

Cleveland gets great support from the local busnisses. I still say the M's
would get much better corporate support if they played outdoors in a stadium
which real luxery boxes. If you want to wine and dine a client at the ball 
game it's got to be better than a kingdog and some olympia beer and seats 
on the 3rd base line. (no skyboxes in the kingdome)

Maybe with this new drive taking a client out to an M's game will become a 
thing to do instead of taking them to the space needle.

I certainly hope so...

Metz

  >>I'd hate to be Pete who grew up with this team representing the area :-)

    Metz, it's been hell, lemmetellya.  But then again, if you were me,
    you'd be much more handsome, suave and charming 8^).
    
    Mac, I'm starting to get the impression that you believe a little too
    much of what you read.  People from California forming support groups?
    I have a feeling that these people would need support groups even if
    they didn't have this bogus complaint.  The person who works for me
    moved here from California and she looks at me like I'm demented when
    I ask her about any hostile treatment she's had in Seattle.  I've asked
    quite a few people about it and none of them have had such an
    experience, if you exclude good-natured joking.  Don't believe every-
    thing you read.  This story has reached urban legend proportions.
    
    And, maybe Cleveland isn't in danger of moving to Florida because they
    don't have a clown with a 70 million dollar mortgage on the Indians
    for an owner.
    
    Pete

    Let's see if I have this right.  Seattle is asking MLB to step in and
    force one of their owners to sell his team.  The owner wouldn't have to
    sell the team if he could move it to someplace where he'd make money.  
    
    One of the groups Seattle is trying to get to participate in this
    forced buyout has an investor willing to put up 60% of the money but
    lives outside of North America.  Today he is saying that he would not
    move the club under any circumstances.
    
    I think part of the concern on the part of MLB is that they've heard
    this before (Smulyan) and are leary of selling to someone non-local. 
    Promises have been made and broken before (Smulyan).  Baseball is a
    business and is economically driven.  I too would be leary about
    selling to someone who has very little ties to the area other than he
    owns a business there - especially a business that has shown that they
    will do everthing possible to maximize their profits.  It's fashionable
    to label people as Japan-bashers and racists and Seattle is playing
    this to the hilt.

    
    I think that anti-California movement is much more prevalent in Oregon
    than Washington (at least that's where I've heard more about it).
    
    > I too would be leary about
    > selling to someone who has very little ties to the area other than he
    > owns a business there - especially a business that has shown that they
    > will do everthing possible to maximize their profits.
    
    I did just read where Nintendo of America settled out of court with the 
    US Government on price-fixing charges.  They don't have a great track
    record.  But then again, to be fair, neither do some of baseball's
    owners or the companies they're associated with.
    
    Baseball has backed off on some other prospective owners in the past, for 
    perhaps even more capricious reasons.  I believe that Ed DeBartolo, Jr.,
    was one when he was prohibited from buying the Cleveland Indians.  The 
    guy did turn out to be one of the more successful (but not popular) NFL 
    owners.
    
    glenn
     

It was suggested on the radio this morning that if "certain"
owners block the sale of M's that Nitendo should block the sale
of their games in those cities.  TAKE THAT Chicago, Detroit
and Milwaukee!!  Now those owners are going to have to find
some other way to keep their kids out of their hair.

Al L.

�It was suggested on the radio this morning that if "certain"
�owners block the sale of M's that Nitendo should block the sale
�of their games in those cities.  
    
    It wouldn't be anything new.  Nintendo controls who can write software
    for their systems (pay us lots of money or we'll sue you - right
    Atari), how many games will go to their retail outlets, and how many
    games will be produced (right in line with the law of supply and demand
    - they keep the supply down which brings up demand and prices).  Their
    out of court settlement over price fixing was to give each person who
    bought one of their game systems a $5 coupon good on the purchase of
    their next game - very shrewd business on their part, they probaby sold
    an extra million games that way.

    re: .78
    
    So Nintendo would be cutting their nose to spite their face. It never
    helps a company like Nintendo to not sell in specific cities,
    especially places like Chicago. Radio talk shows seem to get the
    nutties ideas.
    
    The Crazy Met
    

re: .78

Amen, and then maybe some of these kids will go out and play or 
maybe even pick up a book and do some homework instead of sitting 
in front of the tube from the moment they get home from school 
till bedtime. Who was the genius that thought this up?

daryll

    One of Fay Vincents henchmen, er underlings, has started to back off
    the 'NO WAY' mandate of Fay's.  He admitted that they didn't really
    understand the offer - or even take a good look at it - simple heard
    'Japanese' and did the jingoistic thing.  He said they didn't realize
    that the head of Nintendo of America would be the leader - and since
    he's lived in the Seattle area for 15 years, he meets the local angle.
    
    Interestingly, MLB 'bent' a few rules to let Smulyan buy the M's.
    
    1.  Local Ownership Requirement - Smulyan is from Indianapolis (hint,
    that isn't near Seattle), and promised to make a residence in Seattle
    and spend much of his time there.  Despite not securing a local
    residence, Fay and the boys feel that he complied with the intent.
    
    2.  Requirement that 60% of the sale be in cash.  Smulyan BORROWEd 100%
    (Hint:  that's 0% in cash).   Not a bad deal for Jeff, huh?  Sort of
    like buying your first house by slapping down the VISA card.
    
    The local group complies with both of those 'rules' - especially given
    that Nintendo of America (which is in Redmond, which is oh, I'd guess,
    at least 1800 or so miles closer to Seattle than Indianapolis was...)
    will be the 'head' of the group.
    
    I'd also say that from a  community standpoint, more people in the
    PUgent Sound area interact and deal with firms/people in Japan than
    they ever have in Indianapolis.
    
    JD
    
     

    TCM -
    
    Yeah - and stuf like that is analagous to the current "Buy America"
    program (and with it the implication of "don't buy Japanese").
    
    If the Japanese retaliated - the US would be in deep doo-doo - they are
    the #1 importer of US agricultural products.  They could, if forced,
    find willing trade partners for those goods in Argentina, Canada,
    Australia....
    
    ANd per capita, Japanese spend as much on U.S. goods as we do on
    Japanese goods.  Of course, there are TWICE as many Americans as
    Japanese.
    
    JD

    <<< Note 238.83 by RIPPLE::DEVLIN_JO "Is that a Drake's Coffee Cake?" >>>

        
    >If the Japanese retaliated - the US would be in deep doo-doo - they are
    >the #1 importer of US agricultural products.  They could, if forced,
    >find willing trade partners for those goods in Argentina, Canada,
    >Australia....
    
    I have a hard time believing this. Even if they are 
    the #1 importer of our agriculture, it takes a lot of rice to 
    equal one Toyota. Frankly, if we both restricted trade with each 
    other, they'd take a beating. We'd be hurt no doubt, but not as 
    severely.

    USA Today cited a poll that said that a Seattle radio station 
    conducted a poll of 49K+ Seattle residents and that the 
    results were something like 53% for and 47% against Japanese 
    ownership. "Overwhelming" support is a matter of opinion.

    daryll

    Darryl -
    
    We import a lot more to Japan than just rice.  Nice stereotype though.
    
    Why didn't USA Today cite other polls that show a larger majority? 
    
    Actually, I believe that Japan doesn't import as much rice from the USA
    as we would like them to.
    
    Remember, I did say agricultural products:
    
    *  For instance, the Japanese bought most of the Northwest Cherry Crop
    (Northwest has the largest cherry crop, I believe...)
    
    *  They import huge, huge, huge amounts of wood.
    
    *  They import seafood by the ton, apples,  and lot of other stuff.
    
    It's well documented that in the case of wood products, teh Canadiens
    and most recently, the former USSR, would be more than willing to fill
    the order if the US and Japan would cut that piece of trade.  
    
    International trade is more involved and more sophisticated than simply
    saying "Let's not buy x-country's products no more, duh!"
    
    Re:  Toyota and Rice - of course, they'd be a chance that the Toyota
    was made in Tennessee and the Rice grown in Louisiana.  But detail just
    get in the way...
    
    JD
    
    BTW:  Darryl, when's the last time you were in Seattle..
    
    
    

    
    I don't think it's within baseball's jurisdiction to turn this Seattle
    deal into an international debate on fair trade policies, but if JD 
    wants to argue the point there's only one relevant fact with respect to 
    this deal on that subject: no American citizen, not even one from
    export-rich Seattle, is permitted by law to buy or invest in a Japanese 
    baseball team, regardless of his place of residence.
    
    glenn
    

    <<< Note 238.85 by RIPPLE::DEVLIN_JO "Is that a Drake's Coffee Cake?" >>>

   > Darryl -
    
   > We import a lot more to Japan than just rice.  Nice stereotype though.
    
    Nice try, but I was using it as an example. Just as I was 
    using Toyota rather than Nissan.

   > Why didn't USA Today cite other polls that show a larger majority? 
    
    I don't know. I don't work for the USA Today. Why not call them?

   >Actually, I believe that Japan doesn't import as much rice from the USA
   >as we would like them to.
    
    You fail to mention why that is. Probably just slipped your 
    mind though...

    
   > International trade is more involved and more sophisticated than simply
   > saying "Let's not buy x-country's products no more, duh!"
    
    Apparently, our largest agricutural importer doesn't see it 
    that way.

    Re:  Toyota and Rice - of course, they'd be a chance that the Toyota
    was made in Tennessee and the Rice grown in Louisiana.  But detail just
    get in the way...
    
    Of course, the profits from the Toyota, irregardless of where 
    it was built would still be going back to the mother country. 
    It's those profits that drive the trade deficit. The deficit 
    grows with every dollar that leaves this country.

    It's good PR though.

    What does my visits to Seattle have to do with anything? I've 
    never been to Austin if that helps.

    daryll

    >Let's see if I have this right.  Seattle is asking MLB to step in and
    >force one of their owners to sell his team.  The owner wouldn't have to
    >sell the team if he could move it to someplace where he'd make money.  
    
    Once again, Mac, you have it wrong, wrong, wrong.  Seattle never asked
    anyone to step in and force a sale.  Smulyan bought the team which had
    a valid stadium lease with King County.  Part of the "escape clause" is
    that if he wants to move the team, he has to offer it for sale to local
    buyers for the appraised price.  He decided he wanted to move the team,
    so he is simply complying with the terms of the lease.  If he didn't
    like the lease, he didn't have to buy the team.  He knew what he was
    getting into.  
    
    
    >USA Today cited a poll that said that a Seattle radio station 
    >conducted a poll of 49K+ Seattle residents and that the 
    >results were something like 53% for and 47% against Japanese 
    >ownership. "Overwhelming" support is a matter of opinion.
    
    You're kidding, right, Darryl?  This is one of those incredibly 
    unscientific polls where you call an 800 number and punch 1 for yes
    and 2 for no.  Have you ever had a statistics class?  These polls are
    a joke.  I can tell you that I listen to the local all-sports station
    and I've heard literally dozens of calls on this subject, and a grand
    total of one caller has objected to the deal.  This is about as
    scientific as the radio call in polls.
    
    It certainly sounds like the AL has 3 strong "no" votes already:
    Chicago, Milwaukee and Detroit.  Chicago because Reinsdork feels guilty
    for stiffing Tampa a few years ago, Detroit because of anti-Japan
    feelings and Milwaukee because the owner and Smulyan are buddies.
    Only the threat of legal action is going to swing this Seattle's way.
    
    Pete

    re: back a few
    
    1. Japanese law forbids importing of rice.
    
    2. Assume a trade war. Consider that the Japanese economy is much more
    export driven than the US economy. SUre prices in the US would go up,
    and it would certainly hurt the world economy. However, with the
    current state of affairs the US would be in better shape than Japan.
    
    That being said I don't believe a trade war is the answer. 
    
    We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
    
    The Crazy Met
    

    TCM -
    
    Except unlike the good old days, many items produced nowdays have parts
    and components that were produced in different nations.  One of the
    most overlooked good things in the auto industry is the fact that we
    export a lot of auto parts - even to Japan.  
    
    I would think the computer industry would be hard pressed to survive
    without goods from either Japan or the U.S.
    
    Thanks for the rice info - I had heard something, but didn't remember,
    and didn't want to put in the reason without being clear.
    
    NOw back to our regularly scheduled program.
    
    JD

    Economics 101
    Marketing 101
    Civics 101
    
    The NW has quality products, which earn business in Japan or in any 
    other market (examples are Boeing- the #1 US exporter; Microsoft- the
    #1 provider, world-wide of software; apples; and forest products)  
    Major League Properties has great products.  Generate the demand
    in Japan with 'Japan's Team' and bring in the revenue to all MLB teams.
    
    Detoit, build better cars at a competitive price and you will sell
    them.
    
    Congress, either get tough when faced with closed markets, not second-rate
    products- the most obvious is rice market in Japan or bargin and get
    concessions.
    
    Collusion- a secet agreement for faudulent or illegal purposes, like
    the conspiracy to move the M's to Tampa.
    
    Lawsuit- have deep pockets because the lawyers will get rich.
    The State of Washington has deep pockets.
    
    Baseball 101
    
    Seattle is very close to fielding a winner on the field and off the
    field.  Look out, we are here to stay and will beat you on and off the
    field.  
    
    Buy your Griffey Jr. dolls (via Nintendo machines in Tokyo) for
    only 599 yen today!
    
    Matt the Mariner
        

    Does Nintendo own a team in Japan?

    Latest possible deal-killer: MLB now is expressing a "concern" that
    Nintendo is involved in legal gambling in Japan.  It seems that they
    make a device to allow your TV to be an interactive terminal.  It can
    be used for gambling.
    
    Since gambling is the one thing that MLB won't tolerate, they are
    hinting that the sale will be voided on these grounds.
    
    My opinion is that this is another dull-witted diversionary tactic.
    Nintendo is merely manufacturing an electronic device.  They are not
    in any way involved in the gambling industry, fer crissakes.
    
    On the positive side, Fay and his buddies are taking a much less
    militant stance lately.  They seem to slowly be coming around to 
    understand this offer for what it is.
    
    Pete

    According to something I read this weekend, Speaker of the US House of
    Representatives Tom Foley (who is from Washington) had a quiet
    conversation with Fay Vincent last week.  Foley said, in not so many
    words, if you guys block this sale, legislation to repeal the
    anti-trust exemption will be filed within a week.
    
    John

�    Latest possible deal-killer: MLB now is expressing a "concern" that
�    Nintendo is involved in legal gambling in Japan.  It seems that they
�    make a device to allow your TV to be an interactive terminal.  It can
�    be used for gambling.
    
    It's more than just Japan.  One of the US States (Minnesota?) was
    looking letting folks use their NES systems to play the state lottery. 
    Of course we wouldn't want our kids to get into gambling so the plan
    was scrapped.

    mAC -
    
    Actually MInnesota scrapped the deal.  One other state is lookinginto
    the cartridge.
    
    One quote I heard said that the Nintendo cartridge has as much to do
    with gambling as the telephone does.  Afterall, the phone is used to
    call in millions of bets every year.
    
    Also, the lottery angle of the'gambling' is interesting, since the
    owner of the Cubs (Chicago Tribune) sponsers a lottery show each night
    in Chicago, and one other team (Balt?) has lottery connections.
    
    JD

�    Actually MInnesota scrapped the deal.  
    
    I know and stated as much in my last sentence.
    
    For those of you looking for consistency from MLB, didn't they punish
    Mantle and somone else for being employed as greeters for a casino? 
    Then again, if Chicago and Baltimore are involved in lotteries that
    brings up the inconsistency issue again.

 Bowie Kuhn suspended Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle from baseball because
 an Atlantic City casino had hired them as well-wishers.
 
 But at the same time, George Steinbrenner owned race horses.
 
 Go figure.
 
 Bob Hunt

    Bart Giamatti pursued Pete Rose like the hunter does the fox, yet
    ignored tapes of Dave Winfield talking about betting on football
    games.  Go figure is right.
    
    				/Don

    /Don -
    Bart G. was a pompous ass.  Baseball's commissioners are jokes - from
    Frick to Bowie Knife to Bart to this new fool.
    
    JD

 JD,
 
 I liked Bart Giamatti simply because he *loved* baseball.   Probably more
 than any other baseball commissioner, past or present.   Yeah, he oozed
 pomposity but he could hold me in sway when he waxed so eloquently on the
 simple joys of the game.   He was a delightful breath of fresh air from Mr
 Corporate Potato Head ... Peter Ueberroth.   I miss Bart.
 
 And down deep, Bowie Kuhn honestly believed he was doing the right things
 for the good of the game.  I heard him speak once at a lecture at school
 and I was impressed by his honest beliefs.  Dry but decent sense of humor,
 too.
 
 Bob Hunt

    The Nintendo link to gambling goes like this:
    
    The CDC proposal, to the State of Minnesota, would provide for lottery
    betting at home, using a CDC designed, developed, supported and
    sponsored cartridge running on a Nintendo deck, linked via the phone.  
    Nintendo's link to gambling is CDC proposed running the CDC system 
    on a Nintendo deck, nothing more.
    
    Good thing CDC didn't propose a DOS PC platform.  Because Microsoft
    would be linked to gambling and the $30M provided by Larsen would
    have to be removed from this package.  
    
    Hang em, shoot em, you Subaru driving, Sony watching, sushi eating
    tree huggers.  You are not good for baseball.
    

�    The CDC proposal, to the State of Minnesota, would provide for lottery
�    betting at home, using a CDC designed, developed, supported and
�    sponsored cartridge running on a Nintendo deck, linked via the phone.  
�    Nintendo's link to gambling is CDC proposed running the CDC system 
�    on a Nintendo deck, nothing more.
 
    It is a little more than that.  Nintendo requires that all software
    written to run on their game systems be licensed and approved by
    Nintendo.  There is built in security to prevent non-Nintendo licensed
    software from operating in a Nintendo game deck.  Atari found a way to
    get around the security and is being sued by Nintendo.
    
    Does this link Nintendo to gambling?  MLB has punished weaker links.   

    Since my sarcasim engine is running at warp speed, once more thought:
    
    The President of Nintendo America is an MIT graduate and is a major
    contributor to MIT.  Since his philanthropy is in question in this
    notes file, you must certainly come to the same conclusion with
    giving to MIT.  Perhaps he is investing in the training of future
    engineers who will monopolize the US with Nintendo based gambling.
      
    
    

�    Since my sarcasim engine is running at warp speed, once more thought:
�    
�    The President of Nintendo America is an MIT graduate and is a major
�    contributor to MIT.  Since his philanthropy is in question in this
�    notes file, you must certainly come to the same conclusion with
�    giving to MIT.  Perhaps he is investing in the training of future
�    engineers who will monopolize the US with Nintendo based gambling.
    
    Good ammo, Matt, but wrong target.  The more appropriate target is the
    "foriegner making the most of an American education, taking it home and
    using it to screw American Business", and the "investing in American
    Researches so he can pillage the results and use it to screw American
    Business".
    
    HTH

    Personall, I think this has been a done deal for a while.  The Owners
    bent the rules for Smulyan to get the team - and probably for some
    future favour.  The cards are being called in now, and no matter what
    the Seattle area comes up with, the Mariners will be in Florida. 
    
    I honestly don't think that the Commish or the Owners will approve
    anything but Mr. Leveraged Liar to take the team to sunny Florida.
    
    
    And when that happens I hope that  MLB gets sued from as many sides as
    possible - including revokding the trust stuff.   
    
    See the sport fall brought to its knees, kilt by its own lust and
    greed.
    
    JD

    I agree that MLB has promised Tampa a team and will stop at nothing
    to give them the M's.  BUT, I think their fear of Tom Foley/Slade
    Gorton initiating legislation to revoke their anti-trust exemption
    and their fear of losing a collusion lawsuit will cause them to
    reconsider.
    
    It will play out like this: Owners vote to deny the sale to the
    group, but gives them the option to re-do the ownership percents to
    make it palatable.  The group changes with the Japanese percent going
    from 60% to 49%, the deal gets approved and MLB saves face and avoids
    a losing lawsuit.
    
    The only question, will the Japanese group accept minority ownership?
    They say no, but they may change their minds.  Heck, if they're really
    doing this for the good of Seattle, they shouldn't care what % they
    own, right?
    
    Pete

                          
    I think we've all been getting carried away with our predictions of how
    this is going to play out, the conspiracies that are at work, etc.  The 
    whole issue of Nintendo's involvement in gambling enterprises was raised 
    by a Tampa newspaper, not Fay Vincent nor any of the owners who will be
    deciding on the Baseball Club of Seattle ownership proposal (for the 
    most part, the owners are not talking at this time).  Now why would a 
    Tampa newspaper stoop to printing such dirt?  ;-)
    
    Sports Illustrated has a pretty even-handed article on the Seattle bid 
    in this week's issue that weighs some of the pros and cons of the
    purchase without resorting to knee-jerk accusations of racism or 
    villification of Fay Vincent, Jeff Smulyan, and/or the other baseball 
    owners.  I thought it was a decent synopsis of the issues at hand...
    
    glenn
     

    Glenn -
    
    The SI article was good.
    
    JD

    >>I think we've all been getting carried away with our predictions of how
    >>this is going to play out, the conspiracies that are at work, etc.  The 
    
    Maybe, Glenn, maybe.  I'm no conspiracy theorist (heck, I believe that
    Oswald MIGHT have acted alone), but I can't help but believe that there
    is more to this than meets the eye. 
    
    In addition to all I've written before, it now seems that in December,
    MLB adopted a written policy to deny ownership to non-Americans or
    Canadians.  The policy is to be in force for a year.  Smulyan put the
    team up for sale in late November or early December.  Why was there
    a sudden change of policy right at that time?  An absolutely incredible
    coincidence?  Maybe, but I doubt it.  MLB has been and is currently
    colluding to move this team to Tampa Bay.  
    
    Pete
    
    

    
    > In addition to all I've written before, it now seems that in December,
    > MLB adopted a written policy to deny ownership to non-Americans or
    > Canadians.  The policy is to be in force for a year.  Smulyan put the
    > team up for sale in late November or early December.  Why was there
    > a sudden change of policy right at that time?  An absolutely incredible
    > coincidence?  Maybe, but I doubt it.  MLB has been and is currently
    > colluding to move this team to Tampa Bay.  
    
    According to SI, the topic of a policy on foreign ownership was raised at
    the winter meetings, but the discussion was tabled with no resolutions
    or new rules passed.  SI claims that no one foresaw the immediate need 
    for such a policy (in any case, apparently there still isn't one outside 
    of the existing preference for local ownership, regardless of the motives
    behind the proposal).  This account is nearly the opposite of the one 
    you've related above.  So what's the truth?  What kind of inside 
    information are you guys in Seattle receiving that the rest of us keep 
    getting in reverse?  ;-)
    
    glenn
    

    Steve Greenberg (son of Hank Greenberg; Yale graduate; AAA player),
    Fay the Accidental's 'right hand', stated in January that no written 
    or informal policy exists regarding foreign ownership.  Yet the 
    Accidential Commissioner stated last week, in NY, that such a prohibition 
    was approved by the ownership in December 1991.  Not only will a lawsuit 
    open baseball's financial ledger but will bring to light all related 
    ownership meeting records, minutes, decisions, etc.  Smulyen and the
    owners are in a tough position now.
    
    The more 'Say Hey' Fay talks the greater Seattle's chances of keep our team.
    
    Matt the Mariner

    re: .111
    
    Glenn, as I see it, one of two things is happening:
    
    1. The Seattle press is reporting info that seems trivial outside of
       Seattle, thus isn't reported elsewhere
    
    or
    
    2. The Seattle press is a bit over-eager to believe everything they
       hear, thus are going off half-cocked and reporting rumors, hearsay,
       etc. as news, when in fact, it isn't.
    
    I think there's a bit of both going on.  Category 2 would seem to
    include the widely-reported info linking Nintendo to gambling, when
    it was actually reported first by a Tampa paper.
    
    The December adoption of the no-foreign ownership info would be
    category 1, IMO.  I think it's true, but I'm not surprised it isn't
    being reported elsewhere.  The info came out after the SI article was
    written.
    
    Pete

       There was a report in the paper that the Sen. from Wash. is lobbying
    his colleagues to pressure owners in their states to approve the sale.
    He will push congress to remove baseball's anti-trust exemption (it's
    about time!) if the sale is denied.
                                     Denny

    
    I believe I thought of a resolution to this problem yesterday.  
    
    
    Let's sell the Japanese the Washington Senators--all 100 of them.  
    I think it would solve the baseball issues and the national debt, all
    at once.
    
    Brews 

    Yeah, as long as they take Bush, Qualyle, and the rest of his cronies
    along with them.
    
    JD

    1) The Japanese Baseball League doesn't allow non-Japanese ownership
       of their franchises.
    
    2) Do you think Fay Vincent & Co. would be making trouble if Japanese-
       American Sen. Dan InNoWay and some a his rich Japanese buddies from
       Hawaii were trying to by the Mariners?
    
    MrT

    I have it on good authority that the Baseball Club of Seattle has
    a contingency plan should the owners reject the current offer.
    This plan, proportedly, is unrejectable.  No specifics were provided.  
    My guess is this offer involves changes to the ownership percentages where 
    the majority ownership of the Mariners is by people who are 'acceptable' 
    to the owners and Fay.
    
    
    

    From Todays Glob:
    
       Speaker of the House Tom Foley and other Congressmen meet with
    commissioner Fay Vincent to discuss the fate of the Seattle Mariners.
                                          Denny

    Close this notes file out.  The Mariners are staying in Seattle.
    MLB tired but just could not turn down this offer.  It just made
    sense.
    
    Boston fans, now its your turn (and for Detroit, Houston and San
    Fransico).  Tampa Bay would be a great home for the Red Sox.
    You could call em the T.B. Raiders.
    
    Matt the Mariner

    I heard the Indians were the only team to not vote in favor of this.
    Anyone care to speculate why? I might have thought the White Sox would,
    since they almost moved to Tampa Bay themselves a few years ago.
    
    What about the Expos? They might be a likely candidate, which would be
    a real shame. Baseball isn't the same there, and many players really
    think of it as a foreign country, as opposed to Toronto. This makes it 
    really tough to sign free agents.
    
    Tom 

    
    > I heard the Indians were the only team to not vote in favor of this.
    > Anyone care to speculate why? I might have thought the White Sox would,
    > since they almost moved to Tampa Bay themselves a few years ago.
    
    Just another financially-strapped, so-called small market team helping
    out another...
    
    Get real, Matt the M... you've constructed a massive straw-man that you
    continue to feed but the reality is that baseball got what it wanted in
    local control and everyone (except maybe the Indians) seems to be happy.
    As for the Red Sox moving, forget it.  Unlike Mariners fans, Red Sox 
    fans have supported the franchise through decades of frustration.  And I 
    don't want to hear any more whining and complaining from Seattle fans 
    until, say, at least 1995!  ;-)
    
    glenn